Author
Topic: OO Monophysite or Miaphysite? (Read 18754 times)

I understand this can be a controversial topic but are there any OO's that are happy to be described as, or who self-identify as, being Monophysite? How many are content that Miaphysitism is generally seen as a sub-category of Monophysitism?

It occurs to me since the lifting of the mutual anathemas that from the EO perspective there are interpretations of Monophysitism that are acceptable to Chalcedonians. Yet from what I've seen from publications on the net OO authors seem to be insisting that OO's are not Monophysite at all?

Calling someone Miaphysite instead of Monophysite is a bit like calling someone a person of colour rather than a coloured person. They mean pretty much the exact same thing, but one has a pejorative connotation (in this case it is associated with a particular heresy) while the other does not.

As long as 'monophysite' continues to imply that Christ was only divine, that His divinity swallowed up His humanity, or that the two were mingled or altered as a result of the hypostatic union, most OO will probably continue to insist on being called 'miaphysites'. It hasn't completely worked though. I recently read a paper in the Cambridge History of Early Christianity where the author, keen not to offend, used the term 'miaphysite' rather than 'monophysite'. The problem was that she was using 'miaphysite' to mean the belief that Christ was only divine and not human. So perhaps better to make the distinction between orthodox monophysitism (or 'moderate monophysitism' as academics often use) and heretical monophysitism, before 'miaphysite' simply ends up taking on the old heretical/pejorative definition.

As I always say, if you're comfortable calling St. Cyril "Monophysite", then we're comfortable with being called that too. The whole point is to point to the source of our beliefs, who is revered as a Church father by all.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Calling someone Miaphysite instead of Monophysite is a bit like calling someone a person of colour rather than a coloured person. They mean pretty much the exact same thing, but one has a pejorative connotation (in this case it is associated with a particular heresy) while the other does not.

So theres a prejudice implied and thats how it's perceived by OO's but it would be unusual for no one to turn around and say, well hey I'm a Monophysite and I'm proud of it!

As long as 'monophysite' continues to imply that Christ was only divine, that His divinity swallowed up His humanity, or that the two were mingled or altered as a result of the hypostatic union, most OO will probably continue to insist on being called 'miaphysites'. It hasn't completely worked though. I recently read a paper in the Cambridge History of Early Christianity where the author, keen not to offend, used the term 'miaphysite' rather than 'monophysite'. The problem was that she was using 'miaphysite' to mean the belief that Christ was only divine and not human. So perhaps better to make the distinction between orthodox monophysitism (or 'moderate monophysitism' as academics often use) and heretical monophysitism, before 'miaphysite' simply ends up taking on the old heretical/pejorative definition.

As you said above it means the same thing 'One Nature' and however that one divine nature, or monophysis, is explained and defined it will allways amount to the same thing because the humanity of Christ, and whatever is meant by that, exists only in relation to and in the context of his absolute divinity.

As I always say, if you're comfortable calling St. Cyril "Monophysite", then we're comfortable with being called that too. The whole point is to point to the source of our beliefs, who is revered as a Church father by all.

One Nature of God the Logos IncarnateI don't have a problem seeing this as a Monophysite statement but then I don't mean the term in a pejorative way and don't wish to offend.

As I always say, if you're comfortable calling St. Cyril "Monophysite", then we're comfortable with being called that too. The whole point is to point to the source of our beliefs, who is revered as a Church father by all.

One Nature of God the Logos IncarnateI don't have a problem seeing this as a Monophysite statement but then I don't mean the term in a pejorative way and don't wish to offend.

You may have no problem with it, but there's a hypocritical approach from scholars to call OOs Monophysite, but St. Cyril Orthodox, as if this phrase never existed in his slew of writings and thought.

It's why OOs take a stand and just say, "We're not Monophysite, get your malarkey together."

« Last Edit: February 06, 2013, 03:41:29 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

As I always say, if you're comfortable calling St. Cyril "Monophysite", then we're comfortable with being called that too. The whole point is to point to the source of our beliefs, who is revered as a Church father by all.

One Nature of God the Logos IncarnateI don't have a problem seeing this as a Monophysite statement but then I don't mean the term in a pejorative way and don't wish to offend.

This phrase is always translated so badly. It should be, "one incarnate nature." The standard interpretation according to the Chalcedonians, like the Leontioi, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus is that this formula is not monophysite at all.

« Last Edit: February 07, 2013, 10:23:56 AM by Cavaradossi »

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

Does anyone know when the term "Miaphysite" started to be used and by whom? Would using "Henophysite" been the better way to go?

What would the difference be? In Greek the number and noun have to agree in gender. Mia is 'one' feminine. For example, in the Creed we say "hena Theon" and "hena Kurion" but "mian, agian, katholiken kai apostoliken Ekklesia"* since the word "ekklesia" is feminin. Switching to the masculine or neuter doesn't change the meaning.

You may have no problem with it, but there's a hypocritical approach from scholars to call OOs Monophysite, but St. Cyril Orthodox, as if this phrase never existed in his slew of writings and thought.

Actually, during the theological debates of 523, one of the Chalcedonian representatives, Hypatius of Ephesus, believed that all the references of "one nature" in St. Cyril's writings were "...the result of interpolation by heretics".

In 532, Hypatius of Ephesus, a strict Chalcedonian, denounced the Apollinarian forgeries. He refused to believe that the highly revered Cyril could ever have been duped by them and preferred to regard the frequent appearance of the Apollinarian formula in Cyril's works as the result of interpolation by heretics: Acta conciliorum oecumenicorum, ed. Eduard Schwartz (cited infra as ACO), 4, 2 (Berlin, 1914), 171.40-173.2, 179.38-180.3; cf. note 8 infra.

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

What would the difference be? In Greek the number and noun have to agree in gender. Mia is 'one' feminine. For example, in the Creed we say "hena Theon" and "hena Kurion" but "mian, agian, katholiken kai apostoliken Ekklesia"* since the word "ekklesia" is feminin. Switching to the masculine or neuter doesn't change the meaning.

* Apologies for Erasmian rather than phonetic spelling.

My impression, if I'm not mistaken, from those posters here knowledgeable in Greek is "Miaphysite" is a distinction without a difference from "Monophysite". But Henophysite may more clearly indicate the intent of the union of natures. I think I came across that point from something Fr. John McGuckin wrote.

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

My impression, if I'm not mistaken, from those posters here knowledgeable in Greek is "Miaphysite" is a distinction without a difference from "Monophysite". But Henophysite may more clearly indicate the intent of the union of natures. I think I came across that point from something Fr. John McGuckin wrote.

I don't see the reasoning behind it. 'Mono' and 'mia' are numerically the same, but at least they're different words - 'only/single' and 'one' - 'hen' and 'mia' are the same word, just different genders, so I don't see what it would change.

I don't see the reasoning behind it. 'Mono' and 'mia' are numerically the same, but at least they're different words - 'only/single' and 'one' - 'hen' and 'mia' are the same word, just different genders, so I don't see what it would change.

Sorry, Orthodox11. This is where my ignorance comes into play. I though "Heno" meant union or joining into one, not just a single one like "mono".

Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Does anyone know when the term "Miaphysite" started to be used and by whom? Would using "Henophysite" been the better way to go?

This is what I found using my mad netodox skills:

Footnote 9, p. 262:

S. Brock, ‘The Christology of the Church of the East’, in Tradition and Heritage ofthe Christian East: Proceedings of the International Conference (Moscow, 1996), 163–4,proposes Miaphysite or Henophysite as more accurate alternatives; although theformer has now been adopted by some, Monophysite remains the recognized term.

Again, if it's semantics, I won't disagree. But the problem again, it's not the semantic nature of it, but the pejorative way it is used. If your most strict Chalcedonian is willing to call St. Cyril by the same terminology, then I don't mind being called whatever he's called, even a "Monosesarkomeniphysite" if that's what you want to call him.

In the end, people tend to call him "Orthodox" and so do we call ourselves.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Again, if it's semantics, I won't disagree. But the problem again, it's not the semantic nature of it, but the pejorative way it is used. If your most strict Chalcedonian is willing to call St. Cyril by the same terminology, then I don't mind being called whatever he's called, even a "Monosesarkomeniphysite" if that's what you want to call him.

In the end, people tend to call him "Orthodox" and so do we call ourselves.

This is what I consider to be perhaps the most concise and thorough statement of the Miaphysite Faith from St Cyril:

"Accordingly when we assert the union of the Word of God the Father to his holy body which has a rational soul, a union which is ineffable and beyond thought and which took place without blending, without change, without alteration, we confess one Christ, Son and Lord, the Word of God the Father, the same God and man, not one and another, but one and the same, being, and known to be, God and man. Therefore sometimes he speaks as man according to the dispensation and according to his humanity, and sometimes as God he makes statements by the authority of his divinity.

"And we make the following assertions also. While skillfully examining the manner of his dispensation with the flesh and finely probing the mystery, we see that the Word of God the Father was made man and was made flesh and that he has not fashioned that holy body from his divine nature but rather took it from the Virgin Mary. Since how did he become man, if he has not possessed a body like ours? Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of his Incarnation we see that his two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for his flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation.

"Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh."- Papa Abba St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45:6 (to Succenus, Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria)

Again, if it's semantics, I won't disagree. But the problem again, it's not the semantic nature of it, but the pejorative way it is used....In the end, people tend to call him "Orthodox" and so do we call ourselves.

Agreed. Just look the first post of the thread calling Metropolitan Kallistos Ware a heretic because he communed to "monophysites" which was changed to "Oriental Orthodox". The reason given for censoring the text is that monophysite is a "forbidden epithet". It is forbidden because it is always (or close to always) used pejoratively by Chalcedonian Orthodox. I wonder if it would make sense if the moderators would have changed the sentence in that thread to "[Heretic] Metropolitan Kallistos Ware confirmed in writing in 1984, that he gives Communion to the Orthodox.

I agree with the moderators. They needed to change such shameful language. In reality, the problem lies in the Chalcedonian mind that wants to distinguish Dyophysite vs. Miaphysite (or as you said Monosesarkomenesyte) but refuses to make any distinction between Miaphysite (or as you said Monosesarkomenesyte) vs. Euthycianism. And since both the Dyophysite and Miphysite Christologies validate their Christologies by St Cyril, both should clearly be called Orthodox.

Sooner or later, "Oriental Orthodox" will become a forbidden epithet. It is already forbidden by many strict anti-ecumenical Chalcedonians like this one. What word will the moderators use then?

This phrase is always translated so badly. It should be, "one incarnate nature." The standard interpretation according to the Chalcedonians, like the Leontioi, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus is that this formula is not monophysite at all.

Sorry this seems wrong. I don't know Greek and I hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong. As I understand it, "mia" is a feminine adjective, "physis" is a feminine noun. Mia is an adjective that modifies the noun physis, not the nominal phrase "incarnate nature". According to TLG, "sesarkomene" is the perfect participle mid-pass fem nom/voc sg. Doesn't it make more linguistic sense that "theou" is modifying "sesarkomene" (Incarnate God) instead of "mia" modifying "sesarkomen"?

If it were "one incarnate nature", wouldn't the Greek be "Mia sesarkomen physis tou theou" or "Mia physis sesarkomen to theou"?

Again, if it's semantics, I won't disagree. But the problem again, it's not the semantic nature of it, but the pejorative way it is used....In the end, people tend to call him "Orthodox" and so do we call ourselves.

Agreed. Just look the first post of the thread calling Metropolitan Kallistos Ware a heretic because he communed to "monophysites" which was changed to "Oriental Orthodox". The reason given for censoring the text is that monophysite is a "forbidden epithet". It is forbidden because it is always (or close to always) used pejoratively by Chalcedonian Orthodox. I wonder if it would make sense if the moderators would have changed the sentence in that thread to "[Heretic] Metropolitan Kallistos Ware confirmed in writing in 1984, that he gives Communion to the Orthodox.

I agree with the moderators. They needed to change such shameful language. In reality, the problem lies in the Chalcedonian mind that wants to distinguish Dyophysite vs. Miaphysite (or as you said Monosesarkomenesyte) but refuses to make any distinction between Miaphysite (or as you said Monosesarkomenesyte) vs. Euthycianism. And since both the Dyophysite and Miphysite Christologies validate their Christologies by St Cyril, both should clearly be called Orthodox.

Sooner or later, "Oriental Orthodox" will become a forbidden epithet. It is already forbidden by many strict anti-ecumenical Chalcedonians like this one. What word will the moderators use then?

St Cyril of Alexandria, a mutual saint, and the infamous St Severus of Antioch and such hold to the Cyrillian Christology that denies mixture, commingling, and confusion of Christ's humanity and his divinity.

Miaphysitism: Christ in one united nature (of two natures) in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation.Eutychianism: Christ has one Nature of God and Man that is mixed and confused.

Hermias: But if we say that the Nature of the Son is One, even though He be conceived of as Incarnate, all need is there to confess that confusion and commixture take place the nature of man being lost as it were within Him. For what is the nature of man unto the excellency of Godhead?Cyril: In highest degree, my friend, is he an idle talker who says that confusion and commixture have place, if one Nature of the Son Incarnate and made man, is confessed by us: for one will not be able to make proof thereof by needful and true deductions. But if they set their own. will as a law to us, they devised a counsel which they cannot establish, for we must give heed, not to them but to the God-inspired Scripture... - St Cyril of Alexandria, That Christ is One

Again, if it's semantics, I won't disagree. But the problem again, it's not the semantic nature of it, but the pejorative way it is used....In the end, people tend to call him "Orthodox" and so do we call ourselves.

Agreed. Just look the first post of the thread calling Metropolitan Kallistos Ware a heretic because he communed to "monophysites" which was changed to "Oriental Orthodox". The reason given for censoring the text is that monophysite is a "forbidden epithet". It is forbidden because it is always (or close to always) used pejoratively by Chalcedonian Orthodox. I wonder if it would make sense if the moderators would have changed the sentence in that thread to "[Heretic] Metropolitan Kallistos Ware confirmed in writing in 1984, that he gives Communion to the Orthodox.

I agree with the moderators. They needed to change such shameful language. In reality, the problem lies in the Chalcedonian mind that wants to distinguish Dyophysite vs. Miaphysite (or as you said Monosesarkomenesyte) but refuses to make any distinction between Miaphysite (or as you said Monosesarkomenesyte) vs. Euthycianism. And since both the Dyophysite and Miphysite Christologies validate their Christologies by St Cyril, both should clearly be called Orthodox.

Sooner or later, "Oriental Orthodox" will become a forbidden epithet. It is already forbidden by many strict anti-ecumenical Chalcedonians like this one. What word will the moderators use then?

At the very least our clinging to the term "Miaphysite" will at least put us in a position to wait for the trap of their condemnation of the term, and our validation of keeping the Cyrillian Orthodox faith I mean really that's the whole point. If Miaphysitism is a heresy, St. Cyril is a heretic.

Patrick Barnes is a character

« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 03:18:09 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Sooner or later, "Oriental Orthodox" will become a forbidden epithet. It is already forbidden by many strict anti-ecumenical Chalcedonians like this one. What word will the moderators use then?

"Non-Chalcedonian" is a term that is acceptable to both sides, if I understand correctly. As I said in another recent post, no one is required to call us Orthodox. If "Oriental Orthodox" offends anyone, they can use "Non-Chalcedonian." Calling us "Monophysite," though, is forbidden in the public forums because it is too contentious and polemics is forbidden here.

Sooner or later, "Oriental Orthodox" will become a forbidden epithet. It is already forbidden by many strict anti-ecumenical Chalcedonians like this one. What word will the moderators use then?

I agree with the rest of what you said, but I think this is looking at it the wrong way, because it gives those Chalcedonians a sort of power (at least theoretically, in debate) to define what Orthodoxy is even for those who aren't in communion with them in the first place (and hence obviously likely don't see them as Orthodox in the first place). I have tried to impress this point upon many an EO inquirer on this very board, but somehow it never seems to sink in. You've read the Chalcedonian polemics, and obviously side with them, but why then do you think you can point to those same polemics (like the stuff in the link) and assume that it should leave non-Chalcedonians quaking in their boots, begging to be accepted by the Russians or the Greeks or whomever? As though these are our Fathers just because they are yours? I mean here quotes from John Damascene, or the monks of Mt. Athos, or wherever else. Sometimes they are interesting, sometimes they are insightful, but I don't care about these people when they go on and on about the "heresy of the Egyptians" or whatever, because I've studied the Egyptians in question themselves, from their own writings, under the tutelage of other actual Egyptians, too. And I'm supposed to disregard what I've learned of what they actually teach and believe because of polemics on the internet that can't even keep their story straight sometimes (perhaps you remember the great ruckus when one "Abouna" Athanasius Henein 'converted' to EOxy? There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance. So I always say (in contexts where it comes up, as when talking to Latin friends who also have this "Orthodox = Chalcedonian" mindset, too, for obvious reasons) that when I use the word Orthodox self-referentially, I am not intending to speak for the EO in the slightest -- rather, where/when we agree, we agree. But you will never find me begging to be considered Orthodox by anyone, because I am only trying to follow what our Fathers St. Cyril, St. Athanasius, St. Basil and others laid down as fundamental to the Orthodox faith. Such strong, clear, foundational teachers of our faith cannot be degraded by internet polemic, and so neither will my faith in the Orthodoxy of our confession (which is to say, in ORTHODOXY, period).

I do not understand why every non-Chalcedonian does not take a similar approach. It has been suggested by our common friend Stavros (I think that's what he goes by on here, anyway) that the view I have been taught is something of a minority within the Coptic Orthodox Church itself, where people apparently prefer to treat EO as if they are de facto Orthodox, and so we should be in that sense pro-Chalcedonian. Well, I can't really speak to that, but abouna told me in no uncertain terms that he will not commune Chalcedonians at our church, as the Tome of Leo which they profess as Orthodox is "full of heresies" (his words). Is this extremism or anti-ecumenism? I hardly think so, as that same priest speaks very highly of the local Greek Orthodox Church, with whom we share close relations, and will even on occasion reference Greek, Russian, or Romanian saints to make a point during a talk. It seems for the most hardcore anti-ecumenists, this alone would be evidence of heresy, but I don't see it that way. I don't think we need to be hateful toward anybody (and again, where we agree, we agree), but I fear if Stavros is correct, maybe some people get the idea that they should feel ashamed when the Chalcedonians say we aren't Orthodox or whatever. Like we have something to fix. Doctrinally, I don't see what that would be. I would hope we can be confident (not prideful) and assert the Orthodoxy of our confession before anybody and everybody (even the most hardcore anti-OO), and not apologize that we hold to St. Cyrill's formulation of μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. In the face of this Orthodox confession, the anti-OO Chalcedonians could call us all the names in the world and I wouldn't care. We don't become Orthodox whenever they'll agree with us, only to become heterodox when some idiot shows up with links to his YouTube channel to remind us all that, surprise surprise, the EO and OO don't agree with each other on everything and so remain out of communion. This is not news, some 1600 years on...but it always is news to me when we are once again "monophysites" or "Eutychians" because some guy with more zeal than brains doesn't know what words mean. I always find myself saying "Arghh...really, again with this?" But it's not really a surprise, you know? You've read that link. You see what they have to work with. Lord have mercy.